Open Conversation Part 1

So I’ve decided to bring the “Kathy” series to an end. However, we’ve had some fun in those threads when the conversation has gone off into interesting tangents, so I’d like to keep that part of it going for anyone who’s interested. These new threads will no longer focus on Kathy or the things we were discussing with her. So thanks for your time, Kathy! Take care.

There are no real rules for these threads. But to kick off the conversation, I’ll go back to the discussion on Paul that a few of us were having. Laurie views Deut 13 as a prophecy about Paul, so why don’t we take a quick look at it?

“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, 8 you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. 9 But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11 And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you.

12 “If you hear in one of your cities, which the Lord your God is giving you to dwell there, 13 that certain worthless fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, 14 then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently. And behold, if it be true and certain that such an abomination has been done among you, 15 you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, devoting it to destruction, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword. 16 You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square and burn the city and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It shall be a heap forever. It shall not be built again. 17 None of the devoted things shall stick to your hand, that the Lord may turn from the fierceness of his anger and show you mercy and have compassion on you and multiply you, as he swore to your fathers, 18 if you obey the voice of the Lord your God, keeping all his commandments that I am commanding you today, and doing what is right in the sight of the Lord your God.

I can see how one could apply this to Paul. However, I can also see how Jews could have applied it to Jesus as well, especially if he was claiming divinity for himself. And I’m sure this could have applied to lots of people during Israel’s history. Why should we think it’s pointing to Paul specifically, and why wouldn’t it also apply to Jesus?

Comment navigation

(Woops I wrote this before seeing the new open conversation. It doesn’t address the prompt, but I’ll post it anyway and come back later!)

I love Final Fantasy 7, Nate! Favorite RPG hands down.

Yeah, scholars think Acts was written in defense of Paul since he is the hero of the story. Even if the author of Acts was allegorizing, (i.e., the same way Philo coupled Judaism with Platonic forms) it would still not explain features of Acts that support Paul’s position. For example, Peter’s vision in which he concludes that all foods are kosher. And, at the Jerusalem Council the apostles agree with Paul and decide not to burden the Gentiles with the law. (So, how is it that Paul is any more responsible for Christianity than the 12 apostles?)

The author of Acts might support an ethnicity-based observance of law, though. The author seems to have an understanding of the doctrine of grace, but does not want to apply it to its logical conclusion as Paul wants to. Paul wants to fulfill Jesus’ vision that the church is one and that requires the full application of the doctrine of grace.

Historically, the issue of the law was already in question before Jesus and Paul came on the scene. There were both Hellenizing and Judaizing Jews in the diaspora. The law already seemed antiquated in the first century, and this was causing tension in their environments. What Paul did was see Jesus as the solution to this tension, to draw all people to God without the necessity of ethnicity or customs. And, Reformed Judaism born in the nineteenth century has taken steps in this direction as well.

But, where does the new anti-Paul sect come from? I don’t fully know, but I have been very disappointed with their scholarship. These interpretations of vague prophecy remind me of the idea of rapture or people claiming Obama is the anti-Christ. And, the failure to see that the Jerusalem apostles have no more credibility than Paul when it comes to claiming Jesus is the Messiah or Jesus resurrected or Jesus is divine. Maybe they have more credibility on Jesus’ ministry, but not on the items mentioned and maybe not even the application of Jesus’ teachings which were not always straight-forward but represented the complexities of the world. So, I would speculate that taking Paul out the picture may have delayed what happened, but eventually it would have become as it is. The anti-Paul sect would have to blame the doctrine of grace, then God for giving it, then they would be denying themselves life.

. . . and now dreaming about escaping Midgar and slaying Emerald weapon. . . Chocobos. . . the death of Aeris which I did not cry upon seeing. 🙂

portal, I went to gamestop today, they only had portal in a game called “orange box” which had half life 2 portal and another game, but it was $34.00u.s. pre-owned.
my game budget is 10.00 a month, I got “red dead redemption”, an open world wild west cowboy game, by rockstar that also makes the grand theft auto series. the artwork is gorgeous, so realistic.

oh, fun fact, my parents named me paul because they wanted me to be just like paul of the buybull. they got their wish, I’m just as big an asshole as he ever was. lol

An open topic thread? Then I will share some random quotes that I found:

Since the Almighty hath left us with no divine standard by which to judge the works of men be they Divinely Inspired or not, we are left entirely to our own faulty methods, scurrying about like blind mice waiving our scraps of parchment, “Here, this, this one is a note from God!” Indeed, it is utter nonsense to portray we have knowledge of the Divine and claim to know his works. – source unknown

Another that we can all learn from:

Once you have become so entrenched in your own arguments that you no longer consider the possibility of being wrong… Be Ashamed! And lower your head. For you have lost the search for truth. – Robert F.

“For example, Peter’s vision in which he concludes that all foods are kosher. And, at the Jerusalem Council the apostles agree with Paul and decide not to burden the Gentiles with the law”

You err not knowing the scriptures.

“But, where does the new anti-Paul sect come from? I don’t fully know, but I have been very disappointed with their scholarship. These interpretations of vague prophecy remind me of the idea of rapture or people claiming Obama is the anti-Christ.”

We can’t discuss these issues because you lack a basic understanding of the scriptures, and it would take me to long to teach you. Like most Christians, the only doctrines you are familiar with are Paul’s.
These prophecies are only vague to the unlearned. It’s like a Jewish person claiming Isaiah 53 is about Israel and not Mashiach Ben Yoseph.

If the prophecies I quoted sound vague to you, I have a hard time believing you can understand any biblical prophecy.

If you think Peter ever ate something unclean, you need to read that chapter again.

Look, prophecy is vague — it may as well come in a fortune cookie. I mean, just look at how Matthew (mis)uses it. Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing you address some of these points more fully. I know it’s time consuming, but it surely doesn’t come as a surprise to you to know that your view of scripture seems unusual to most people.

I know that’s what they believe now, but it wasn’t always this way. Our is Israel, and He is the anointed one. This is evident, just by reading it.

Likewise, when Peter had the dream about the sheet, he said “no YHWH, never have I let anything unclean or common touch my lips!” . So all the time after Yahusha rose, Peter kept kosher. The dream was confusing at first, but then he interprets the dream for us. It was not about food, but about the goyim

In Acts 15:10, Peter is talking to the other apostles about those who claimed circumcision was necessary for salvation. He says:

10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

This sounds as though Peter agrees with Paul that circumcision is not a necessary requirement for salvation. A few verses later, James says this:

19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

So aside from these restrictions, James seems to agree that the rest of the law doesn’t apply to the Gentiles. Then, they say the following about Paul:

25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Sounds like high praise.

Finally, the apostles reiterate their stance toward Gentiles:

28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

So, if I understood Brandon correctly, he’s asking why Acts would record these things if Paul was not sanctioned by the apostles and if the Law of Moses was still in effect. Did the apostles really say these things?

Acts 15:19-22 “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.”

Hmmm. This passage seems to show there are only four rules given to Gentiles coming into the faith. While the Torah wasn’t forced on Gentiles all at once, it was understood they would learn it gradually over time, hearing it each week in the synagogues. For that matter, Torah wasn’t forced on Israel in a day either — they too received it over time.

Acts 15:21 “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”

Christians generally ignore this verse in the passage because the ramifications are obvious: What has Torah being taught each week in synagogues have to do with Gentile believers? Why is it being mentioned here along with the ‘four laws’? Because the Gentiles were to *learn Torah* each week in the synagogues! They are being started off on these four laws so they would have the bare basics to begin fellowshiping with their Jewish brethren and they would learn the rest of Torah each shabbat at synagogue. Only after pointing out the Gentiles would learn Torah weekly “did it please the apostles and elders” (vs 22) to send this letter out to the various churches.

Acts 15:5-11 “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”

Rather than isolate one verse alone and build on that, one must look at the whole chapter. Only in proper context will the meaning become clear. 1) What group was demanding conversion by circumcision and Torah observance? 2) How was the “Torah of Moshe” defined by the group demanding it? 3) What was the apostle’s response to *this particular group*’s demand and why? 4) What does other scripture teach regarding observance for believers (Gentile and Jewish)? Only after answering these questions can one arrive at what this passage is really teaching.

It was understood by all the apostles that G-d’s Torah never changed or was replaced. We know this from the teachings of Yeshua — heaven and earth will pass away before one yod or stroke from written Torah will (Matt 5:17,18). We also know that Yeshua considered the “traditions of man” not equal to written Torah, in fact, sometimes the oral tradition violated the written Torah (Mark 7:9). The apostles upheld written Torah but frowned on the legalism of oral law. So who is making the demands in Acts 15:5? The *Pharisees* are. So, Acts 15 is basically dealing with whether Gentiles needed to convert according to Pharisaic tradition; that is, become proselytes to Pharisaic Judaism.

We know Gentiles could be saved without becoming proselytes — the believing of Cornelius and his family proves this. Cornelius was a G-d-fearer, a ‘ger’/righteous Gentile, one who had believed in the G-d of Israel but had not actually undergone the conversion rituals to become a proselyte. Now, from a 20th century perspective, circumcision may seem to some as only one law out of many in Torah. But from the 1st century perspective, circumcision was the means of making a proselyte. That is why circumcision is being singled out as a demand apart from its inclusion in the Torah. Torah-observance in general isn’t the issue — conversion is. Notice the Pharisaic complaint wasn’t “we demand they eat kosher and keep the Law of Moses” or “we demand they observe the Sabbath and keep the Law of Moses.” Both these would be ridiculously redundant since Law of Moses already included both of these individual laws. No, circumcision is singled out not as merely ‘1 of the 613 laws’ but instead as the means of making a proselyte to Pharisaic Judaism.

Circumcision had become a conversion ritual by the Pharisees just as baptism is often misused today as a means of “joining a particular church.” If I refuse to be baptised in the Morman church, surely you’d see mine is a rejection of Mormanism — NOT baptism itself! So the apostles reject this Pharisaic demand that Gentiles undergo the Pharisaic circumcision. Theirs was *not* a rejection of circumcision or Torah, but a rejection instead of Pharisaic conversion rituals. The gospel was being received by Gentiles *without* them becoming proselytes — so this conversion by circumcision wasn’t required. Note that G-d “made no distinction between us and them” (Acts 15:9) to show G-d was accepting Gentiles *without* them converting first.

“Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” Acts 15:7-11

Now Kefa argued against this attempt of the Pharisees to put a yoke on the new believers, a yoke neither they nor their fathers could bear; this yoke is the Pharisaic oral tradition. Yeshua taught:

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.” Matt 23:2-4

Note the warning a few verses later:

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” Matt 23:15

Note that oral tradition is a burden — man attempts to enslave others; but G-d’s Way is freedom. Yeshua proclamed:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach freedom to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” Luke 4:18,19 (Isaiah 61:1)

Liberty is already defined in Ps 119:

“So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever. And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.” Ps 119:44,45

Note What G-d says to His redeemed Israelites:

“I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, that ye should not be their bondmen; and I have broken the bands of your yoke, and made you go upright.” Leviticus 26:13

G-d didn’t give His Torah only to re-enslave Israel. Torah is freedom. Torah is never a yoke. It is man’s additions to G-d’s laws that are the yoke.

Now let’s look at the Pharisaic demand that Gentiles keep the Torah of Moshe. To the Pharisees, the “Torah of Moshe” meant both the oral and written law — they consider both parts ‘inspired.’ Pharisees would never word that as “We demand they keep Torah of Moshe and *also our man-made additions to it*.” What group, believing their traditions to be equal to Torah, would disparage their own teachings in this way? So, when the Pharisees say “keep Torah of Moshe” they mean written *and* oral parts — they make no distinction between the two. Yet some argue that because Kefa and James didn’t point out, case by case, why they were rejecting the demands of the Pharisees, that somehow by their silence they were also discounting written Torah. May it never be! It’s far better to realize that Kefa and James were rejecting a religious system of the day (Pharisaic Judaism), a belief system that included some things they agreed with (written Torah) and some things they didn’t (making proselytes – enforcing oral torah). As a more modern example, I reject the teachings of certain Christian denominations — but that doesn’t mean I reject the Holy Bible too just because these denominations also use it in their teachings. The apostolic rejection of Pharisaic Judaism is NOT a rejection of written Torah.

Acts 15 shows that the early Gentile believers were given four starter laws, and were to learn the rest of Torah each week in the synagogues. Gentile believers were NOT required to formally convert to Pharisaic Judaism because G-d had already accepted them without them becoming proselytes.

Paul was suspected of teaching against Torah in Acts, and that is why they had him do the Nazarite vow, so people would see that he kept the law.

In some of his writings it appears that he does keep Torah, he even talks about attending the feasts. But if you study all his works, you will see in the end he was against the true apostles. He called them false in Galatians 2, and 2 Corinthians 11.

Thanks for posting this, Laurie. It helps me get a better handle on how you’re viewing this.

A couple of thoughts:

Your article makes the comparison of Mormon’s baptism and the Pharisees’ reference to circumcision. While I understand the point she’s making, I don’t think the comparisons are really 1-to-1. The Law of Moses does command circumcision, so I don’t think it’s appropriate to say that when it’s mentioned in this passage it signifies the Pharisees’ incorrect application of the Law. If that’s what Peter and James were driving at, I think they would have been more specific. As it is, Acts has them saying that circumcision and the law are unnecessary burdens on the Gentiles. Perhaps your article is right that this was only meant to be temporary, but nothing like that is spelled out anywhere. Plus, we have the apostles supporting Paul in this passage, and we know from his writings that he no longer considered the Law to be necessary.

It’s true that Matt 5 says not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away, but it’s important to note that the caveat “until all is accomplished” is also there. What does that mean? Paul would say that “all was accomplished” in Christ’s death, since it was the ultimate sacrifice. The OT system had fulfilled its purpose. The way I see it, this just isn’t a slam dunk either way. It’s too murky.

Also, I’m not sure that Acts 15:21 is really saying that Gentiles are to continue learning the Torah in synagogues. I think it’s just saying that there have always been Gentiles who were drawn to the “true” God; now, there’s no need to trouble them with the whole law, but with these basic things. I don’t doubt that they intended to give more instructions to the Gentiles than just this — but where are we told what those are?

And I don’t see how we can say that “beloved” only applies to Barnabas. Let’s look at the verse again:

to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul is included with this group of men. It would be easy to see “beloved” as applying to him, and even “men who have risked their lives…” Grammatically, there’s no indication that he should be left out of this praise. And it’s true that Paul’s own letters hint at a less friendly relationship between himself and the apostles in Jerusalem, but Acts gives no such indication. I’m still having a hard time seeing how Acts can be accepted but Paul rejected…

Learning YHWH’s Torah was not as easy then as it is today, so to put it all in a letter to the church back then was impossible. They didn’t carry bibles with them like we do today. So to tell them “this is a good place to start, stay away from these things and you’ll do well” was about as much as they could do. Later on when Paul is accused of teaching against Torah, the apostles don’t know what to do other than have him show an outward act of obedience to the law. It is obvious that they were still keeping it.

The bible is a small book, it doesn’t spell it all out, you have to search it.

Messiah says heaven and earth will pass away, so all has not been fulfilled.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Here is that verse in context

According to messiah Paul will be called least in heaven. That doesn’t mean he will be in heaven, but that he will be called least.

Paul is one that will hear “depart from me, I never knew you” for teaching the negation of the law.

portal, I went to gamestop today, they only had portal in a game called “orange box” which had half life 2 portal and another game, but it was $34.00u.s. pre-owned.
my game budget is 10.00 a month, I got “red dead redemption”, an open world wild west cowboy game, by rockstar that also makes the grand theft auto series. the artwork is gorgeous, so realistic.

Hey Paul, Nice 🙂 The orange box is worth a look I think, its less expensive in Australia, like I think I saw it somewhere for 19 dollars. I’d get it for Portal 2 and Half life, but then again I never got into team fortress.

A little background – i was born in a Buddhist family and converted to Christianity when I was 18 (when I joined the military) and now I’m an atheist after 10 years in The Lord.

If I may blow my trumpet, most people think I’m one of the kindest and generous person they have met – including Christians. I am also the most well read and most opinionated individual in my church about current affairs and always provide different angles and perspective to things.

Seeing how I am more generous than my Buddhist family, and also christian friends, I would say that neither religion is critical in me being generous nor well read in world affairs and the issues of morality and philosophy.

Maybe I just have a softer heart than most. Maybe it is in my genes. Seeing as how science has indicated that different chemicals can illicit different emotional response, coupled with the fact that there are some studies about some mental defect that prevent pple from feeling empathy, I would think that saying there are people borned nice or borned dickish may be possible.

Of course you do – according to the Acts Seminar, those words were written in the early 2nd century, after everyone was dead who could say otherwise, by someone using Paul’s letters as references. I would expect nothing less than a fairy tale showing how Paul and the disciples had group hugs, sang “Kumbaya” and made s’mores.

“Messiah says heaven and earth will pass away, so all has not been fulfilled” – Has no Christian ever wondered, if heaven passes away, what will happen to those who believe they will go there? I think that’s a question I’d like an answer to before I’d sign on for the cruise – too bad a deep thinker like Kathy isn’t here to help us out with that quandary.

Laurie, RE: “18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

I suspect that those who make the assumption that the Law was done away with are using that exact passage, combined with the words Yeshua was quoted as saying: “It is finished,” i.e., fulfilled, as in John 19:28 & 30.

You also have to consider the possibility that that was a metaphorical phrase, akin to, “til the cows come home,” a phrase occasionally utilized by one whose cows never actually went walkabout. Or that if all actually IS accomplished, then there’s no need for heaven and earth to pass away. There could be several ways of looking at it.

In fact, that’s one of the many, MANY problems I have with with the Bible – what supreme being is so egomaniacal that he will give us a mere 70 years, then inspire a book so convoluted that it takes at least the entire 70 to decipher all of its riddles – and imagine those 97% of residents of the Levant who were illiterate! I bought a Weedeater, whose instructions were MUCH simpler than that, left me time for many other things – it would seem that my time is more important to an anonymous writer of Weedeater instructions, than to the skyDaddy who loved me so much that he sent his proxy to be tortured and die.

The Bible has offered many reasons to fear this creature, but I’ve yet to see one that would inspire love.